Now if I should rush in and abolish it (Luther is speaking of the Catholic Mass) by force, there are many who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know where they stand, whether it is right or wrong, and they would say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the will of the majority. And this forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external show, a fool's play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints, and hypocrites. For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people.
Martin Luther, 1483-1546, Sermons, Eight Sermons at Wittenberg, 1522, Second Sermon, March 10, 1522 (Luther's Works, Volume 51, edited and translated by John W. Doberstein, Muhlenberg Press, 1959, p. 76)
Are there things we as Christians today must be careful not to impose by force? How do we recognize them?
a prayer to endure
10 hours ago
Not sure that I am understanding Mike. What is something that should be imposed by force?
ReplyDeleteThe main point of what Luther says, as I understand it, is we should not try to impose any Christian duties by force, because all you do is produce hypocrites. While we today in the United States do not try to do this directly, there are some things that some Christians advocate then tend to go in that direction. As for what should be imposed by force of law I think we should limit ourselves to basic principles of justice toward other human beings.
DeleteCould not say for sure but it seems that Luther may have speaking to the issue of indulgences. In that light, perhaps churches should not put membership requirements like tithing on people?
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not opposed to tithing, but I believe all such things should be done from the heart and it requirement seems legalistic to me. I prefer the system where no one knows what anyone gives except the people who handle the money and that only to give a tax receipt. But I do not know how Luther felt on the matter.
DeleteMy point is concerning the requirement of tithing to get something like membership.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of such a requirement, except in a group I do not want to risk insulting anyone by comparing them to it. If I do not believe it should be known what a person gives, I am clearly against making it a requirement for anything. I have been in the position of record keeper and have considered it my duty not to tell anyone, including the other church leadership what people do or do not contribute.
DeleteMy understanding is that tithing is a requirement to be a member of an Assemblies of God church. It is also a requirement of the United Methodist church that I attend. They say that one does not have to be a member to attend and participate but if one is a member they must tithe. And in other churches that I have attended tithing is preached as a requirement of the faith. So I guess that I am surprised that you have never heard of such a requirement except in one group.
ReplyDeleteI was unaware that either the Assemblies of God or the Methodists had such a requirement and it somewhat surprises me. I have never been a member of either and have never it encountered in the churches of which I have been a member (Christian and Missionary Alliance, Non-denominational and Baptist). I do not know what you mean by a requirement of faith. I have heard it preached as a commandment of God (a matter that is disputable), but I have always seen it left to the conscience of the individual and not enforced in any way.
DeleteHere is the contrarian view Mike:
ReplyDeleteMembership in the church universal probably involves no requirement to tithe or even to give financially.
Membership in a local church should involve some sort of financial commitment to the mission and operation of that church.
That said, in the spirit of Luther's quote, I believe that there should be some sort of checks and balances in a local church to insure that abuses (like indulgences) are prevented. A fellow elder once put it this way:
"We cannot ask people to give sacrificially and then act like they did not."
As you can tell, I am all over the place on this one. ツ
I can understand the position. But I am a strong supporter of Matthew 6:1-4 and I am concerned based on that with anyone checking up to see whether someone gives. I have no problem with teaching giving and teaching tithing. But keeping tabs on whether someone does it seems to me to promote giving for the wrong reason.
DeleteMost churches resemble clubs. So why should they not have membership rules? Why should there not be membership dues. I live in a condo and pay a fee based on the size of my loft. If a church is run like a business then it seems that it should employ business practices? Should not a member be held accountable to pay their dues?
ReplyDeleteBut if a church more resembles the one in Acts where it meets in houses and pastors are not paid ... well now that is a different story! ツ
I suspect you are largely pulling my leg with this one, so I will not give you my rant on how the Christian church is not a business or a club and should not be run like a business or a club. But my concern here is that the membership in the organization church should as much as possible reflect membership in universal church. In our divided Corinthian state of the church this is difficult but should be attempted. Christ has paid our membership dues for us already. I do not know that we have the right to distinguish between dues paying and non-dues paying members. I do not feel as strongly as you seem to about church buildings and paid pastors, but if they are the price of adopting a business model for the church, I can live without them.
Delete"if they are the price of adopting a business model for the church, I can live without them"
ReplyDeleteOn that we agree Mike. I take no issue with a church that is not run as a business. I relish the idea of a body that lives by faith. A congregation that does not take an offering. One that is led by fishermen and carpenters. A group of friends who get together just for the joy of fellowship!
But if a group cannot live without buildings and paid professionals then perhaps that church is more of a club or business? And if a business then it should probably be run as one with budgets, cash flow statements, vision casting, membership fees and the like.
In my mind you really cannot have it both ways. Of course you can do as the church that I attend does and say that one does not have to be a member to attend and participate but if one is a member they must financially support the church. But even that raises more problems - why be a dues obligated member in "a" church when you can be a freewill paying member of "the" church.
Always enjoy chatting with you Mike. Wish we lived closer to each other. I suspect we would have great times over coffee.
I agree it would be fun the sit down over coffee, perhaps someday, Lord willing, that might happen, though I don't foresee how.
DeleteI do believe there is a basis in Scripture for paying pastors (1 Timothy 5:17,18; 1 Corinthians 9:6-16) but this seems to be out of gratitude for a job well done, not a charge up front. Church buildings are entirely optional, though they may be useful for convenience. But if cash flow is a major focus, our goals have become distorted.
The cost of salaries and buildings are what make a church a business.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the scriptures you reference, Paul speaks of supporting people not a church. I take no issue with giving money directly to nonsalaried individuals. I support several such kingdom workers.
I am not clear on the distinction between pastors and kingdom workers. Both have to have money to live on from whatever source. They may also work a secular job, but that can be true in both cases. Many still require the owning of buildings or property to function. If we write off as businesses anyone who has a regular income or owns property I am not sure who we have left.
DeleteI think part of the problem is one of attitude. Do we see the church as something that I own and is there to fulfill my desires or as a station for the furtherance of the kingdom that I support voluntarily because I believe in what it is doing. In this I am convinced requiring people to tithe is a step entirely in the wrong direction.
I see no distinction between pastors and kingdom workers. Each of us has a calling in the kingdom. I agree with your point that each has needs that are met in a variety of ways. And sometimes ministry needs require buildings and the like.
DeleteAnd I see no difference in giving to a local church or to a food pantry that is helping the homeless man on the street as long as it is done cheerfully and not under compulsion.
That brings us back to the tithe. I believe that you and I are in agreement concerning it. One should never be compelled by others to tithe. Church should never be conducted as a business. People who tithe should never be treated differently than ones who do not.
Even so, our present day American culture speaks to us weekly of how churches see themselves as a business. Titles such as senior pastor are used to convey a corporate management structure - some church documents even refer to that person as the chief executive. Offerings are overt and not discreet as plates are passed compelling people to give. Very often separate building funds are established and "members" are compelled to sacrificially give to brick and mortar efforts.
Putting it in context, I remember a time back in 2006 when I managed the sale of our church campus that was purchased in 2003 under the leadership of the senior pastor who had since left. The church could no longer afford the campus and we lost $2 million in the sale. Many things contributed that sad situation - one of which was the idea that good business practices were not used to purchase the campus. The senior pastor believed that he had "heard God" about buying the property and he made it happen even though it was not a good idea.
So I guess my point is that, if one believes that buildings and salaries are needed, part of being a good steward is running that church like a business. Of course I do not think that buildings and mortar are needed. Perhaps a portable tabernacle (i.e. renting a school that is not used) is a better idea than building a temple?
Feel like I am all over the place on this one. I do not like the idea of church as a business but undertand the need to treat it that way. And I wonder if a person is really a member of a local church if they do not support it but prefer to donate to other charitable groups. The issues seem complex and I want them to be simpler.
Appreciate your input and this discussion Mike. Helpful to think about these things with a brother even though my thinking is a bit muddled. ツ
This can be a muddled issue. Our church currently owns a mall, which seemed a good idea at the time the previous pastor and leadership before my time decided to do this and it has become an albatross to the current congregation. The main thing I would advise is to be very careful when you think you have heard from God, to be sure you have heard from God and not your own ego.
DeleteBeyond that I am in general agreement with what you have said. I think we need an attitude change where we ask what is really needed to further the kingdom and what is just building a monument to ourselves. But it is sometimes difficult to know exactly where to draw the line.
Buying malls and campuses like the one I referenced speaks to grandiose visions of ministry Mike. In our case business oriented folks advised against the purchase but were overruled by the senior pastor. Again speaks to the need of treating such decision as business ones instead of "faith" ones. But I suspect I am preaching to the proverbial choir.
ReplyDelete